A Number

by Caryl Churchill

A fascinating meditation on human cloning, personal identity and the conflicting claims of nature and nurture.

Winner of the Evening Standard Award for Best Play of 2002. A Number was first staged at the Royal Court Theatre, 2002, starring Michael Gambon & Daniel Craig.

'A Number confirms Churchill's status as the first dramatist of the 21st century... The questions this brilliant, harrowing play asks are almost unanswerable, which is why they must be asked' - Sunday Times

'Caryl Churchill's magnificent new play only lasts an hour but contains more drama, and more ideas, than most writers manage in a dozen full-length works. Part psychological thriller, part topical scientific speculation, and part analysis of the relationship between fathers and their sons, it combines elegant structural simplicity with an astonishing intellectual and emotional depth...What a tremendous play this is, moving thought-provoking and dramatically thrilling' - Daily Telegraph

'Rarely in my theatre-going experience has a new play conveyed such a disturbing or enthralling impression of domestic weirdness that some families may endure in a not entirely hypothetical future... It's an astonishing event' - Evening Standard

Genres: Plays, Drama, Theatre, School, Fiction, Read For School, Science Fiction

64 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

Caryl Churchill (born 3 September 1938) is an English dramatist known for her use of non-naturalistic techniques and feminist themes, dramatisation of the abuses of power, and exploration of sexual politics.[1] She is acknowledged as a major playwright in the English language and one of world theatre's most influential writers.

Her early work developed Bertolt Brecht's modernist dramatic and theatrical techniques of 'Epic theatre' to explore issues of gender and sexuality. From A Mouthful of Birds (1986) onwards, she began to experiment with forms of dance-theatre, incorporating techniques developed from the performance tradition initiated by Antonin Artaud with his 'Theatre of Cruelty'. This move away from a clear Fabel dramaturgy towards increasingly fragmented and surrealistic narratives characterises her work as postmodernist.

Prizes and awards

Churchill has received much recognition, including the following awards:

1958 Sunday Times/National Union of Students Drama Festival Award Downstairs
1961 Richard Hillary Memorial Prize
1981 Obie Award for Playwriting, Cloud Nine
1982 Obie Award for Playwriting, Top Girls
1983 Susan Smith Blackburn Prize (runner-up), Top Girls
1984 Susan Smith Blackburn Prize, Fen
1987 Evening Standard Award for Best Comedy of the Year, Serious Money
1987 Obie Award for Best New Play, Serious Money
1987 Susan Smith Blackburn Prize, Serious Money
1988 Laurence Olivier/BBC Award for Best New Play, Serious Money
2001 Obie Sustained Achievement Award
2010 Inducted into the American Theater Hall of Fame.

Plays

Downstairs (1958)
You've No Need to be Frightened (1959?)
Having a Wonderful Time (1960)
Easy Death (1960)
The Ants, radio drama (1962)
Lovesick, radio drama (1969)
Identical Twins (1960)
Abortive, radio drama (1971)
Not Not Not Not Not Enough Oxygen, radio drama (1971)
Owners (1972)
Schreber's Nervous Illness, radio drama (1972) – based on Memoirs of My Nervous Illness
The Hospital at the Time of the Revolution (written 1972)
The Judge's Wife, radio drama (1972)
Moving Clocks Go Slow, (1973)
Turkish Delight, television drama (1973)
Objections to Sex and Violence (1975)
Light Shining in Buckinghamshire (1976) [7]
Vinegar Tom (1976)
Traps (1976)
The After-Dinner Joke, television drama (1978)
Seagulls (written 1978)
Cloud Nine (1979)
Three More Sleepless Nights (1980)
Top Girls (1982)
Crimes, television drama (1982)
Fen (1983)
Softcops (1984)
A Mouthful of Birds (1986)
A Heart's Desire (1987)[18]
Serious Money (1987)
Ice Cream (1989)
Hot Fudge (1989)
Mad Forest (1990)
Lives of the Great Poisoners (1991)
The Skriker (1994)
Blue Heart (1997)
Hotel (1997)
This is a Chair (1999)
Far Away (2000)
Thyestes (2001) – translation of Seneca's tragedy
A Number (2002)
A Dream Play (2005) – translation of August Strindberg's play
Drunk Enough to Say I Love You? (2006)
Seven Jewish Children – a play for Gaza (2009)
Love and Information (2012)
Ding Dong the Wicked (2013)
Here We Go (play) (2015)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryl_Ch...

Reviews

[Uroš Đurković · Rating 4 out of 5]

Odlično promišljen, uznemirujuć i krajnje sveden komad o sukobu između oca i kloniranih sinova pravi je izazov za inscenaciju, naročito imajući u vidu šta sve mesta neodređenosti mogu da donesu. Dramski jezik Keril Čerčil je istovremeno kao skalpel precizan i slobodan za različite kontekstualizacije, u odnosu na koje će uvek ostati izvesni sablasni talog.

Nešto se zaista bitno menja činjenicom da možemo da budemo zamenjeni. I to ne nekom drugom osobom, već sobom. Uz malo pomoći biotehnologije, svako će moći da bude dupliran, kopiran, čime se ideja o neponovljivosti života temeljno menja. Ipak, kakav je zapravo status tih novostvorenih entiteta? Da li su oni bića ili stvari? Budući da osećaju i imaju samosvest i sve ostale psihosocijalne funkcije kao „orginal”, da li je uopšte opravdano govoriti o njima neravnopravno u odnosu na nekloniran svet? Ukoliko su nam sasvim jednaki, da li to znači da klonirana bića ne mogu da se koriste kao donori organa ili na neki drugi način? Koliko se puta uopšte neko može klonirati? Može li se i klon klonirati i kakav bi bio njegov status? Imajući to na umu – ko je roditelj klona – biološki roditelj „originiala” ili je klon roditelj sam sebi? Kakav odnos treba da bude između roditelja i dece-klonova? Koji sve aspekti tih odnosa mogu da budu instrumentališući i intrumentalizovani? Sa aspekta čovekove jedinstvenosti i individualizma, koji je odnos između genetike i sredine? Može li ikada da se dosegne biološka identičnost ili samo možemo da govorimo o nečemu što je identično različito? Kako bi se osećao neko kada bi shvatio da je samo jedan BROJ i to kao neko suštinski patvoren, lažan neautentičan? Da li smo već u takvoj poziciji? Koje su sličnosti i razlike između klona i dvojnika? Ukoliko je Eva, kažu neki, nastala od Adamovog rebra, nije li sam koren reproduktivne biomoći upravo – kloniranje?
Kada je previše? Kada je premalo? Kuda želimo? Gde možemo?
I da li sve ovo neodoljivo podseća na život, a veze sa životom nema?

[Alan (The Lone Librarian) Teder · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Number... of Clones
Review of the Theatre Communications Group paperback (2003) of the original Nick Hern Books hardcover (2002)

If you've followed my Goodreads reviews for a long enough time, you will have likely noticed that I have somewhat of an obsessive interest in the music of the Estonian composer Arvo Pärt. This causes me to document all sorts of related offbeat items such as listing books with Fictional Characters Who Love Arvo Pärt or books with Poetry Inspired by Arvo Pärt alongside books about the music of the composer himself.


Actors Lennie Henry and Paapa Essiedu in the 2022 revival of Caryl Churchill's "A Number" at the Old Vic Theatre in London, England. Photograph sourced from the Guardian.

So when I saw a recent review of a revival of Caryl Churchill's play A Number (2002) which included the lines:

Turner’s production is beautifully rounded – and spiky. Every aspect presses on Churchill’s themes. Arvo Pärt’s Fratres, an insistent set of variations, is woven between scenes.

I was obviously going to follow that up with at least a reading of the play.

Churchill's play deals with the subject of cloning. Over the course of 5 scenes, a father named Salter meets with different versions of his son, one named Michael and two named Bernard (called B1 and B2 in the script). The same actor plays all versions of the son. The dramatic tension of the play involves each of the sons confronting the father after learning that they are only 1 of perhaps many copies. There is also uncertainty about whether the father is telling the truth to all of them. Each son feels betrayed in their own way about not being unique and one is even set on murdering the others.

This was an interesting play about the ethics of cloning and it certainly sets up a terrific set of variations for the younger actor in the piece to play different versions of the same person. I was pleased to discover it due to its musical interlude association.

Trivia and Link
Caryl Churchill's A Number first premiered in 2002 with Michael Gambon and Daniel Craig in the father and sons roles.

Actors Daniel Craig (who played the sons) and Michael Gambon (who played the father) in a promotional photograph from the premiere performances of "A Number" in 2002 at the Royal Court Theatre. Image sourced from The Guardian.

A Number was adapted for a television film version in 2008 directed by James MacDonald and starred Rhys Ifans as the sons and Tom Wilkinson as the father. A trailer for it can be viewed on YouTube here.

[Steven Godin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty decent play, looking at the psychological impact cloning has on a father and his sons: two of whom are clones. Quite unsettling in places, and raises some interesting questions about identity and guilt, but it never really took off in the ways I'd hoped it would.

[Nick Pappas · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have this love / hate affair with Churchill. She's so good, and so uninviting. See her plays, never read them. If you can't see them, read them like I do. but be patient.

[Alisa Cupcakeland · Rating 5 out of 5]

It keeps you engaged not only with the plot but also with it possibilities and challenges for performing it.

[Kaitlyn Stitch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short but far from simple. While perplexing, I quite enjoyed the absurdist style of writing. Interesting teaser of a commentary on the ethical principles of cloning and eugenic practices.

[Antonina]

w mojej głowie to była konwersacja między Jamesem Bondem a Dumbledorem, krejza

[Mir · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leer por placer a Churchill y otros nuevos vicios.

[Meghan Barrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

The original review, with pictures of my adorable cat, can be found over at meghan-barrett.com!

This week on 'Bee' Reviewed is one of the more unique plays that I've come across, A Number by Caryl Churchill published in 2002. The play was produced around the time of the Dolly sheep cloning experiment and clearly is impacted by the ethical, moral, legal, etc. complications that cloning poses to our society.

Salter, an aging father, meets with three of his sons (two clones, one not) throughout the course of the play; he spends some of the play lying to them to try to keep his web of lies straight and some of it talking honestly with them about past mistakes. Bernard 1 is his first son, one he felt he didn't raise properly, hence he cloned him into Bernard 2 to try again. Near the end of the play, with both Bernard 1 and 2 out of the picture (boy, does this part of the play happen fast!) he goes to visit another clone he'd never met, Michael Black. The two have a frustrating conversation that leaves Salter unfulfilled but speaks to whether our nature or nurture controls our attitudes and behaviors.

The play deals with ethical concerns surrounding cloning, for example how it might alter family structure and filial connections, and also ponders the nature v. nurture debate (the issue of identity is a frequent theme). I would say it 'lightly' or 'loosely' does this, because the play uses so few words and has so few events, but nothing about this play really feels light. Churchill never tells you what to think, but the sparseness of language, action, and cast leave you hungry and force you to fill in some very deliberate gaps in thought yourself.

I've never felt so winded by reading a play - it's so fast paced that you've nearly finished it before you realize you've begun and so you have to read it over to make sure you caught everything. And boy oh boy is there a lot to catch - in a play of mostly white space, Churchill spins a dense, compelling, thought-provoking narrative with hardly anything happening on stage and only two actors. The emotions of the characters, despite the brevity of the dialogue, are very real and apparent and I got a good sense of each character and their motivation by the second time through the play. The plot, which happens mostly offstage and is recounted, is very suspenseful and makes for a good, chronological framework for the otherwise floating dialogue.

I honestly feel this play would be much better performed than read but it's still a worthy read for anyone even remotely interested in the intersection of scientific and social ethics or those fascinated by cloning. Readers beware the speed of the play - force yourself to slow down or you'll just end up confused and irritated instead of amazed by the play's depth and intricacy in so few words. Churchill has a very stream-of-consciousness kind of dialogue, very unusual, and so it can be difficult to get used to reading the work sine typical sentence structure, punctuation, and syntax all go out the window from page one. I'll leave you with an excellent quote about identity from Bernard 1 (speaking of Bernard 2 to Salter) that showcases this unconventional sentence structure:

"Bernard 1: and you know what he's like, not tidy, am I tidy you don't know do you but you'd guess not wouldn't you but you'd be wrong there because I'm meticulous."

If you're looking for something to read in an hour, but that will leave you thinking for days, I'd heartily recommend this play.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are definitely the bones of something good here, but unfortunately I was unable to unearth them (although repeated readings, perhaps performed out loud might remedy this). I'm definitely keen to revisit it but the main hurdle is the rhythm of speech - it's immensely challenging to try and visualise/hear someone actually speaking in the manner with which Churchill writes. It's halting, some lines consisting of only single words, in the form of a 'yes' or no'. Often the characters cut into one another's lines, or the lines simply trail off and the next character to speak says something only tangentially related to what has been said previously. I suppose it's a measure of Churchill's ability that she did this - after all, this is how people speak. It's just damned difficult to read.

Supplementary comments following second reading on 29/11/21

Well, I read this aloud and it made a huge difference to my appreciation of the play. I now think it is very strong in terms of themes, brilliantly and innovatively written and challenging to produce for the stage (which I am planning on doing). Amended from 2 stars to 4 stars.

[Manik Sukoco · Rating 3 out of 5]

On a routine visit to hospital, Bernard receives some shocking news: he's been cloned. When he confronts his father, he finds out it's worse: he is just one in an unknown number of genetically identical sons. But is Bernard the original or a copy? Does it matter? And what's going to happen when two other versions come knocking at the door? "A Number" takes the ethical labyrinth of genetic engineering, and the timeless debate over nature versus nurture, and reconstitutes them as a bracing family drama. As Bernard and his "brothers" wrestle with a range of very human responses to the news - shock, anger, horror and delight - their anxious father ducks and weaves, grudgingly revealing their histories and the anguished choices he's made. The play's themes might be borrowed from science fiction and philosophy, but its scale is confronting domestic. There are no speeches, no grand pronouncements, no finely honed philosophical dialogues here. It consists almost entirely of the halting, taciturn exchanges that usually pass for conversation between men, especially fathers and sons. This makes the issues real for us. It grounds them in the eternal questions and doubts that hover over every child and every parent who wishes they could cancel their mistakes. "A Number" looks fearlessly at what is often left over when the excitement of new science fades: damaged people. In this case, they must confront not only what's been done to them, but the more terrifying issue of just what they actually are. By extension, it's something we're invited to ponder about ourselves. As one "son" reminds us: "We've got ninety-nine percent the same genes as any other person. We've got ninety percent the same genes as a chimpanzee. We've got thirty percent the same as a lettuce." So what makes me different? What is it that makes me, me? What accounts for that look in the eyes, the set of the shoulders, the scowl or the smile that allows a father to distinguish between his genetically identical sons? We can create life in a petri dish, but do we actually know what it is? It's a chilling question, and one that may well be unanswerable. But as Caryl Churchill shows in this spare, harrowing and above all humane play, those kind of questions are precisely the ones worth asking.

[Samuel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Churchill, once again, succeeds in condensing huge themes into a blinding 60-odd page play. A two-hander that has more than two hands. On the subject of cloning, Churchill explores identity in the modern world, via nature vs. nurture and whether we can really call ourselves unique. A little slice of genius.

[Ronja (queer-is-the-universe) · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don’t know what I think, I feel terrible.

[Can Urla · Rating 5 out of 5]

Today is Father's Day. I neglected editing my Goodreads activities and reviews for too long, and thought today would be a good fit for reviewing this book since it mainly deals with paternal issues.
I am too lazy to create a blog and write my reviews, so I reasoned that using Goodreads as some personal blog would help since I sometimes go back to my reviews to see what I thought about the piece, which mostly comes in handy if I read the text for the second time. So, reader beware because this will rather be a personal review.

"A Number" is one of the best of Churchill. She is always experimenting with different subject matters that are radical, but somehow she manages to put radical into mundane (ex, Top Girls, Escaped Alone). I read this one for my 'posthumanism' research purposes.
The play portrays a cloning experiment that went wrong. A father wants to recreate his original son without thinking that the clone also has a unique personality. Instead, he shapes the personality of the conned son just like he was the original.
Probably written when the cloning issue was a major topic, since the cloned sheep Dolly was sensational around the globe. Yet, Dolly was a cultural product, an icon of the posthuman condition. Bernard 2, on the other hand, is a human being who was reduced to a copy, even though he is not. So, Salter is the second-worst father after Victor Frankenstein. Selfish and helpless. He is determined to butcher originality but recreate it it even though he knows that he will fail. Happy Father's day, Salter.

I love the character Michael Black. He embraces the cloning technology as it is. Maybe Churchil was hopeful about the future in a way.

[Jonathan Daley · Rating 5 out of 5]

A little dated now, perhaps, but a brilliantly simple interrogation of the morality of cloning. Churchill’s ability to examine such incredible themes in such an understated and nimble way is a testament to her writing, and one of the main reasons she has managed to remain so present and so relevant. She really is one of the greatest ever dramatists.

[Nathan Lea · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very interesting concept. Like, really, it’s a brilliant concept. I just kind of wanted more out of it?

Carly Churchill’s writing style is SO specific, however it’s also quite confusing. The dialogue is so particular, it’s very easy to get lost. However, I did enjoy it and would LOVE to see this.

[priyanka · Rating 4 out of 5]

nightmare for an actor, epic for an audience…:/

[permanentsharpie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Love clones and questioning identity. Love untangling the weird patterns of speech and dialogue in my head.

[Oliwia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This-!

[Alan Davies · Rating 3 out of 5]

Can’t recall from whom or where I heard about Caryl Churchill and the plays. Something a few years back awakened an interest. Made a desultory attempt to find a play to read / found a couple / didn’t make the purchase. Reading plays not really my thing.

Post-college Boston – Tom Stoppard’s Rosencranz and Guildenstern Are Dead in very satisfying well-staged performance by Tufts Theater Department. One or two other things there. Near Cambridge’s Central Square if I remember correctly / small repertory company produced plays / very affordable admission price / mostly from modern European repertory – Strindberg’s The Ghost Sonata & Pirandello’s Six Characters In Search of an Author & Ionesco’s Rhinoceros + The Bald Soprano & Beckett’s Waiting for Godot & Sartre’s No Exit & Genet’s The Maids & Chekhov’s Three Sisters + The Cherry Orchard & Pinter’s The Homecoming (I think) / perhaps a dozen more / forgot.

Read a handful of Beckett plays along with all the fiction. Poet peer took me to Krapp’s Last Tape off-Broadway / a delight. More recent friend had tickets for Pinter play on Broadway / forgotten which one / think it featured two couples. An execrable boss bought tickets with which to bribe and reward his customers / didn’t get around to giving them away – saw Les Misérables and Mamet’s Glengarry Glenn Ross / the terseness and unfolding of which I found instructive. Didn’t realize he was such a rabid proto-fascistic nationalist til I saw his House of Games series on Amazon. Riveting staging of Sam Shepard’s True West. Richard Foreman’s miraculous Ontological-Hysterical creations / including but not limited to – Blvd. de Paris (I’ve Got the Shakes) / Madness and Tranquility (My Head Was a Sledgehammer) / Penguin Touquet / Miss Universal Happiness / Film Is Evil: Radio Is Good / Eddie Goes to Poetry City: Parts One & Two / The Mind King / I’ve Got the Shakes / Benito Canova / Bad Boy Nietsche / Now That Communism Is Dead, My Life Feels Empty / Maria del Bosco / King Cowboy Rufus Rules the World. Robert Wilson’s magisterial productions – Alice / ByrdwoMan / Einstein On the Beach / Katya Kabanova / A Letter for Queen Victoria / The Life and Times of Joseph Stalin / maybe one or two others. Don’t have to tell you how divergent are sensibilities and works of Wilson and Foreman. Didn’t find anybody else creating theater who could touch either of them / immensely enjoyed and admired them both. Dionysian and Apollonian / perhaps?

Was manager for three seasons Butoh group Poppo & the Go-Go Boys. Eiko & Koma / others / including Kazuo Ohno at NYC’s Japan Society – over the course of an hour he walked across the stage. The fabulous Ennosuke Kabuki at the Met / whereat Wagner’s Ring Cycle / other operas. Happenings / performance and multimedia events by Oldenberg / Schneeman and others. Stuart Sherman’s intelligently delightful skits featuring objects on a small table / time out of time / redolent of magic / on Soho Broadway sidewalk. Other theater things seen / experienced / for the moment forgotten. Hundreds and hundreds of movies.

I’m no expert on the theater.

But enough about Caryl Churchill.

*

Several months back / mantle in foyer of my building – paperback Theatre Communications Group publication of A Number. © 2002

A number is said to take about an hour in performance. You can read it in less time than that. The play deals with cloning. I wouldn’t say it’s about cloning. Doesn’t mention clones. What it’s about is conversations between a father and his sons.

Characters
SALTER, a man in his early sixties
BERNARD, his son, forty
BERNARD, his son, thirty-five
MICHAEL BLACK, his son, thirty-five

The play is for two actors. One plays Salter, the other his sons.
The scene is the same throughout, it’s where Salter lives.

*

First dialog is between Salter and B2 / Bernard aged thirty-five. B2 came to his father (“father”?) to find out how many clones there are. Wants to think of the others as clones / himself the original. Ends up saying I don’t know what I think. I feel terrible. Dialog throughout is crisp and rather crinkled. The two talk not only with each other / but also at each other / lots of tripping over the other’s speech / bit of dialog often ending in a lacuna / ellipsis. Salter thinks they might make money suing the perpetrator of the clones – they’ve damaged your uniqueness, weakened your identity. Explains that when you were born maybe or later you broke your leg when you were two you were in the hospital, some hairs or scrapings from your skin. We are encouraged to think the cloning / or the additional cloning / was involuntary on his part. B2 wrestles with uncertainties. Salter assures B2 he is his son / genetically the original. The original clone. B2 suggests otherwise / it might have begun with in vitro fertilization. Salter agrees / changes his story. Is he the salt of the earth? Is that why he’s called Salter? Has the salt shaker spilled out lots of little grains of salt? Salter reassures him – because the thing is you see that isn’t what happened. I am your father, it was by an artificial the forefront of science but I am genetically. B2 – That’s great. Salter claims there was a son before him / died with the mother in a car crash / Salter had wanted another son just like the first. B2 still despairing – so I’m just him over again. Salter – No but you are you because that’s who you are but I wanted one just the same because that seemed to me the most perfect. The scene ends –

B2 - I’m just a copy. I’m not the real one.
Salter - You’re the only one.
B2 - What do you mean only, there’s all the others, there’s
Salter - but I didn’t know that, that wasn’t part of the deal. They were meant to make one of you not a whole number, they stole that, we’ll deal with, it’s something for lawyers. But you’re what I wanted, you’re the one
B2 - Did you give me the same name as him?
Salter - Does it make it worse?
B2 - Probably.

*

B1 / Bernard aged forty / visits his father. Might be the son who died. The original original / as opposed to the original clone. Fatal accident when B1 was four / a year to make clone B2? / who then is now thirty-five? B1 accuses his father – you had me sent away and had some other one made from this bit of my body some. Grilled in scene 1 by Bernard the clone / Salter now interrogated by the Bernard from whom B2 was cloned. Admits some clonings were failures / he was tricked / more clones made than he was told about. B1 asks if the procedure was expensive / if they were rich –

Salter No, we weren’t. But I managed. I was spending less.
B1 - You made an effort.
Salter - I did and for that money you’d think I’d get exclusive
B1 - they ripped you off
Salter - because one one was the deal and they
B1 - what do you expect?
Salter - from you too they it’s you they, just so they can do some scientific some research

Salter again thinking some money should be made out of this.

Salter Nobody regrets more than me the completely unforeseen unforeseeable which isn’t my fault and does make it more upsetting but what I did did seem at the time the only and also it’s a tribute, I could have had a different one, a new child altogether that’s what most people but I wanted you again because I thought you were the best.

No one speaks of love. B1 remembers he was very small crying for help / father not responding / mother doing nothing. Asks if his brother / his twin / has children – he doesn’t.

B1 - Because if he had I’d kill it.
Salter - No, he hasn’t got one.
B1 - So when you opened the door you didn’t recognize me.
Salter - No because
B1 - Do you recognize me now?
Salter - I know it’s you.
B1 - No but look at me.
Salter - I have. I am.
B1 - No, look in my eyes. No, keep looking. Look.

End of scene 2. Everyone wants to be recognized / to be unique / to be seen. It’s the stuff of which the theater is made.

*

B2 is back. Maybe we’ll learn more about him / relationship between father and son / cloned son. We can experience B2 now against backdrop of B1 his older “brother” / the original? B2 has met B1. Perhaps B2 was privy to scene 2? Each scene presents opportunity for discovery / as dialog has a way of doing – we don’t often enough take advantage of that. Each dialog is contentious – we might wonder if all conversations don’t contain at least elements of that / the way power and force slip into even the most gentle love making. B2 concerned about how different he was from the other – I wouldn’t be identical. Father worries the two Bernards have quarreled. Not at all. The two met in a public park. B2 wonders if that other (the “other”?) had followed him. Is a clone a doppelganger? The word was adopted mid 19th century from German / literally meaning double-goer. How close are brothers to being clones? Siblings? How not close? First child often fears being supplanted by the second / perhaps in part for that reason / that a double / in some ways a copy / has been produced / entered the first child’s life domain / threatens. B2 thinks of going away / leaving the country. Cain and Able? – it’s an old story. He fears the other brother –

B2 - It’s partly that, it’s also it’s horrible, I don’t feel myself and there’s the others too, I don’t want to see them I don’t want them
Salter - I thought you did.
B2 - I thought I did, I might, if I go away by myself I might feel all right, I might feel – you can understand that.
Salter - Yes, yes I can.
B2 - Because there’s this person who’s identical to me
Salter - he’s not
B2 - who’s not identical, who’s like
Salter - not even very
B2 - not very like but very something terrible which is exactly the same genetic person
Salter - not the same person
B2 - and I don’t like it.
Salter - I know. I’m sorry.

We want our identity to be unique. Not ok if someone is too much like us. Our uniqueness seems to posit / if not to guarantee / longevity. Things that are all the same – fruit flies / rats / herrings – don’t last long / do they? We want so very badly to be special. Want our life to matter / to have mattered. Want to be thought about / remembered – how will that happen if we’re not unlike the others? Our egos are all gasping for breath. B2 wants to know about his mother. Salter now says she didn’t die in a car crash. She was very unhappy / killed herself under a subway train. Neither Salter nor son B1 was there when it happened. Somehow – we went on we just. An echo perhaps? – “You must go on. I can’t go on. I’ll go on.” – Beckett / The Unnamable. A discussion about whether Salter had tried enough to be a good father / whether he had been one / whether he had a choice / whether or not there too genetics played a part / making him what he / therefore unavoidably / was. Salter finally says – I love you. B2 replies – That’s something else you can’t help. Do we do nothing voluntarily / make choices? Not even our emotions? actions? thoughts? We’re not particularly unique / are we? Once asked scientist Tom White what a virus is. He said – We are.

*

B1 is back. It’s been B2 / B1 / B2 / B1 / Salter the common denominator / as I suppose he should be / him having fathered / in different ways / the two. If indeed they are two / in whatever sense the word would now have. 1 + 1 = 2 / in the base 10 system. With clones the 1 and the 1 must be identical / must they not? It could have been one grape and one rock / equaling two things. If the 1 and the 1 are identical / we’re now saying something like 2 = 2 / are we not? B1 has gone to see B2 in the place to which he went away. Salter wants to know how he found him (see what I mean? – he found him) / how he got him away from his lodgings to a place where he could be killed. In a long monologue / long for this play / which almost ends the scene / Salter – I’m still hoping we’ll make our fortunes there. Wonders if B1 plans to kill all the clones. Says – It wasn’t his fault, you should have killed me, it’s my fault you. Perhaps you’re going to kill me, is that why you’ve stopped talking. Shall I kill myself? I’d do that for you if you like, would you like that? Thinks / evidently / that somebody has to pay for this whole damn mess / which doubles his thought that somebody will be made to pay financially. B2 had accused the father of not attending to him when he was young yelling in the night – now it is Salter who remembers B1 shouting in the night / not being responded to. He’s feeling guilty. Salter is confused about what happened with each Bernard / as who wouldn’t be?! Wonders did B1 remember the day he’d been put into foster care.

Salter - … Can you tell me anything you remember? the day you left? can you tell me things I did I might have forgotten?
B1 - When I was following him there was a time I was getting on the same train and he looked round, I thought he was looking right at me but he didn’t see me. I got on the train and went with him all the way.
Salter - Yes? yes?

Salter concerned about himself / what type of parent he’d been. B1 concerned about B2 / his double / made necessary (so Salter says) by B1’s demise. Each centered upon himself. Why are they all men? Even when considering an other / it’s about how that “other” might affect the self that matters / one’s own self. Are we not all like that / not always / but far too much for the sake of those “others” / far too much for the sake of our own “selves”?

*

Scene 5 – Salter and Michael Black, his son, thirty-five. Who can this be? Black sheep of the family? / as Salter is the salt of the earth? A contemporary of B2 / evidently. Exact contemporary? One of the other clones? If so / how many? A son by another marriage? No / no mention of that – though a number of things claimed by the father have then been contradicted by him. Perhaps it is not even the same (or the “same”) Salter – identity has by now been that much questioned. And what is a play / anyway? What kind of identity does one have as a character in a play? To whom is Salter in the play identical? – or B1 / B2 / or Michael Black? If B2 is a clone of B1 they are not identical / one is older / came first / one is from the other and not the other way around. There is no identity / not in the sense of one thing being identical to another. Wittgenstein / Tractatus – By the way: to say two things are identical is absurd, and to say that one thing is identical with itself is to say nothing at all. Whether there is identity in that other sense / the identity we want / think we have / is much questioned / deserving of being more so. Do we “individuals” have an identity? Our ego wants to and does tell us that we do. What is it? Where is it? David Hume – I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement. David Hume – For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception.

Michael - Have you seen the others?
Salter - You’re the first.
Michael - Are you going to meet us all?
Salter - I thought I’d start.
Michael - I’m sure everyone will be pleased to meet you. I know I am.

Salter claims he can tell Michael from the others – just the two others? Or has Michael Black met more? – You don’t look at me in the same way. Michael teaches mathematics / married / three kids. Supposes he’s happy / when asked. Salter begins with a question that fair haunts this fifth scene – tell me something about yourself that’s really specific to you, something really important. For Salter too this matter of an identity (a likeness to oneself?). Not satisfied with Michael’s first answer / a rather detailed bit of anthropology of a sort. I don’t think this is what I’m looking for … because what you’re telling me is about something else and I was hoping for something about you. After another effort on Michael’s part – I was hoping I don’t know something more personal something from deep inside your life. If that’s not intrusive. Salter is looking for what we all suspect we may not have / uniqueness / here absent from even deep inside one’s life. Alas.

Michael - yes perhaps
Salter - because then you might be frightened
Michael - I don’t think
Salter - or angry
Michael - not really
Salter - because what does it do what does it to you to everything if there are all these walking around, what it does to me what am I and it’s not even me it happened to, so how you can just, you must think something about it.
Michael -I think it’s funny, I think it’s delightful
Salter - delightful
Michael - all these very similar people doing things like each other or a bit different or whatever we’re doing, what a thrill for the mad old professor if he’d lived to see it, I do see the joy of it. I know you’re not at all happy.

At this point the dialog / what it’s considering / is almost laughably funny. Salter’s acute despairing not quite being able to put his finger on even what he wants to ask / t o know / let alone his inability to elicit it from his interlocutor. And Michael’s having put his finger on it – I know you’re not at all happy. Here we meet one of the sad poisonous things life can do to us / knowing we allow ourselves to think about human uniqueness / we too want and search for that “uniqueness”. We’re doing / have done it / to ourselves. And why?!

/ copyright © 2021 Alan Davies

[ Essay has been shortened to fit. idonot@mail.com ]

[Janine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clones!

[Clothears · Rating 4 out of 5]

Saw this in September 2002 at the Royal Court Theatre with Stephen Daldry's minimalist production starring Michael Gambon (as the father) and Daniel Craig (as three of the "number").

[Meghan Barrett]

Find the original review at: http://meghan-barrett.com

This week on 'Bee' Reviewed is one of the more unique plays that I've come across, A Number by Caryl Churchill published in 2002. The play was produced around the time of the Dolly sheep cloning experiment and clearly is impacted by the ethical, moral, legal, etc. complications that cloning poses to our society.

Salter, an aging father, meets with three of his sons (two clones, one not) throughout the course of the play; he spends some of the play lying to them to try to keep his web of lies straight and some of it talking honestly with them about past mistakes. Bernard 1 is his first son, one he felt he didn't raise properly, hence he cloned him into Bernard 2 to try again. Near the end of the play, with both Bernard 1 and 2 out of the picture (boy, does this part of the play happen fast!) he goes to visit another clone he'd never met, Michael Black. The two have a frustrating conversation that leaves Salter unfulfilled but speaks to whether our nature or nurture controls our attitudes and behaviors.

The play deals with ethical concerns surrounding cloning, for example how it might alter family structure and filial connections, and also ponders the nature v. nurture debate (the issue of identity is a frequent theme). I would say it 'lightly' or 'loosely' does this, because the play uses so few words and has so few events, but nothing about this play really feels light. Churchill never tells you what to think, but the sparseness of language, action, and cast leave you hungry and force you to fill in some very deliberate gaps in thought yourself.

I've never felt so winded by reading a play - it's so fast paced that you've nearly finished it before you realize you've begun and so you have to read it over to make sure you caught everything. And boy oh boy is there a lot to catch - in a play of mostly white space, Churchill spins a dense, compelling, thought-provoking narrative with hardly anything happening on stage and only two actors. The emotions of the characters, despite the brevity of the dialogue, are very real and apparent and I got a good sense of each character and their motivation by the second time through the play. The plot, which happens mostly offstage and is recounted, is very suspenseful and makes for a good, chronological framework for the otherwise floating dialogue.

I honestly feel this play would be much better performed than read but it's still a worthy read for anyone even remotely interested in the intersection of scientific and social ethics or those fascinated by cloning. Readers beware the speed of the play - force yourself to slow down or you'll just end up confused and irritated instead of amazed by the play's depth and intricacy in so few words. Churchill has a very stream-of-consciousness kind of dialogue, very unusual, and so it can be difficult to get used to reading the work sine typical sentence structure, punctuation, and syntax all go out the window from page one. I'll leave you with an excellent quote about identity from Bernard 1 (speaking of Bernard 2 to Salter) that showcases this unconventional sentence structure:

"Bernard 1: and you know what he's like, not tidy, am I tidy you don't know do you but you'd guess not wouldn't you but you'd be wrong there because I'm meticulous."

If you're looking for something to read in an hour, but that will leave you thinking for days, I'd heartily recommend this play.

[charlie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good play but the cloning was just a convenient plot device; it didn't add anything except making the set of relationships possible. That said, the relationship(s) between Salter and his son(s) were fascinating and well done and I would love to see this staged.

[Nick Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don’t know Caryl Churchill’s work so I can’t put A Number into any authorial context. It’s a short play – apparently about an hour in performance – and is mostly short snappy dialogue with the occasional longer speech. At first it reminded me of Pinter (but I’m reading a lot of Pinter at the moment and a lot of post-1960 British drama reminds me of Pinter), but it has its own rhythms. A lot of the sentences are left hanging, the characters seemingly uncertain how to finish any of their ideas. The play has five scenes, five dialogues. The plot is about cloning: Salter’s son Bernard finds he is one of a series of clones – but it’s not a play about the morality of cloning. In the second section Salter is with the original son, an angry threatening figure who has spent parts of his life in institutions. The two sons are the same (played by the same actor), but are completely different. The thing they have in common that makes them different is Salter and the way he brought them up. After the death of his wife he was an uncaring father to the older Bernard, but a loving father to the younger one. And in the final scene there is a further clone who Salter had never previously met who has a third and very different character. But while the play might be making a statement about the importance of nurture over nature, it is more interesting than that. In its detail its concerns unfold in the series of conflictual dialogues: Salter constantly shifts his position – on being told by Bernard about the clones he tells him that he is the original; when facing counter evidence he allows that Bernard is a clone but states that the original died in a car crash with his mother; but that also turns out to be untrue. He seems largely self-serving – although he later claims guilt for the way things turn out. But, of course, his past act of replacing one son who doesn’t work out well with a clone is a self-serving act...so maybe the play is about the morality of cloning, but the fascination of the play is the way it raises “big questions”, but then manoeuvres around them, raising further thoughts, but never giving us “big answers” to the big questions – and all this is worked through the solid realities of the characters.

[Kari · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this play, but once again post-modern literature/drama is not my strongest point.

I liked that Churchill opted to wrestle with the idea of human cloning and what that means in respect to people and their ability to understand. A Number is a two man play, and a story about a father and his sons. I am using the term sons, which is of course debated during the play. Are these "sons" really his sons or are they less his sons because they are clones? Does the man only have one son? If so then what are the others? The first clone, B2, argues that they are human, and of course in the play the clones display more generally accepted "human" characteristics than the father and son. I feel like this is the underlying theme of the play.

The play progresses through lies; the father constantly lies to his sons. To B2, he depicts a history for the clone which doesn't exist. To his own son, he lies about the boy's childhood claiming to be a better father than he actually was. The father was abusive to his son after his wife/the mother kills herself. The boy suffered from problems after the mother dies resulting in the father sending him away. Enter the clones. The father attempts to make his "perfect son." A son with the same DNA as the original.

The original son kills B2, and has a long conversation with his father after where the father takes responsibility for the course of events. The original son also dies; he kills himself. Finally, the second clone is introduced, and he has a successful life unlike the others. The last scene depicts a conversation between the father and the second clone. They talk about the clones happiness. Apologizes are central throughout the play as well. The father apologizes to B2 and his son, and then at the end of the play the second clone apologizes for being happy when the father feels like he has lost everything. The lay actually begins and end with apologizes.

[Josh Ang · Rating 4 out of 5]

A haunting play that delves deep into a father-son relationship, except that it isn’t quite what you think it is, because there is the father, Salter, in his sixties, and Bernard (B1), his son, forty, and Bernard (B2), his son, thirty-five, and yet another son Michael Black, also thirty-five.

It’s difficult not to give the plot of this very bare but harrowing play away, as Salter talks to each of them in alternating scenes, with inconsistent revisions about the past, as each ‘son’ tries to uncover the reason that there's more than one of them.

Under the guise of an SF premise, the play deals with issues of identity, the spurious desire to make a fresh start when things go wrong, and the tragic failure to connect.The dialogue is short and sharp, and the syntax impactful in their truncated incompleteness, showing the characters’ urgency to get their points across to each other, but ultimately being unable to get to the heart of it, and save their rapidly deteriorating relationships.

[CM · Rating 4 out of 5]

A chilling and forceful play that has accomplished much more than expected, when you consider its brevity (~40 pages) and format (a two-men play). A man in his sixties is talking to his outraged adult son, only this father is always giving a different story and his son is outraged for there are clones of himself. Shifting between talking with the original and one of the clones, these plain (and sometimes, grating) father-and-son dialogues touch on the conditions of identity, the compromise of fatherhood and the limit of biological determinism, while the plot, dare I say, moves forward steadily between parts.


It's just Ms Churchill decided to leave out the majority of her punctuation and all her stage direction. Not really a problem but this stylistic choice doesn't seem to contribute anything significant to the play.
(I can't say I know theatre well but it somehow gives this emotional play an icy facade...?)

Still, I look forward to other works of Ms Churchill.

[K.M. Soehnlein · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd seen this performed a couple years ago but never read it on the page. I was really taken with the style of the script -- mostly unpunctuated, meant to mimic the halting, interruptive rhythms of speech. Felt a bit like reading Beckett or Joyce, but in a more accessible style.

This is highly conceptual stuff: What might the emotional and psychological impact on a father-son relationship if a son discovered his father had cloned him? If a father learned that there were more clones of his son than he'd previously known? If he preferred the clone to the "real" son?

All of this was thought provoking, but only briefly. There are many aha moments in this brief play, but beyond the surprise they don't linger. The impact disappears as quickly as the play moves along. Recommended, with a few reservations.

[Amanda Boehm · Rating 4 out of 5]

This play was absolutely fantastic. Not only was the concept interesting, but because of the structure, so much of the play is up to personal interpretation. There is no direction from the Churchill on how she intended the play to be read/presented, considering the lack of punctuation, lack of stage directions, and cutting sentences short during conversation (do the characters interrupt each other or finish each other's sentences...?). The play brings up many questions about self and identity, nature vs. nurture, what it means to be human, what is a morally/ethically good decision, and to what lengths will humans go to get what they want because of temptation, loneliness, redemption, etc.